markets crashed, businesses shut their doors. the rich leave for another country. unemployment at about 20%. inflation and we become other world country. we always like to end the show on a positive note. good night from new york. neil: 36 days out and time some democrats are teeing a lot more spending up. welcome. neil cavuto. never mind we have not gone to the first debate. some democrats already laying out there spending plan for a second obama term for state. vermont democratic congressman wants to get back to an energy policy that acknowledges the climate changes real. for now he is leaving out the price tag to address it with republicans. unreeled. california democrat wants to refocus on health care to expand on increasingly cost dazed and state days insurance exchanges. arizona favre is a conservative

push on immigration reform. still others interpret in the obama win as a referendum for more stimulus to of the middle-class. good or bad depending upon your political point of view. more taxes on the rich to help pay for regardless of your point of view. get ready. already licking their financial jobs planning for it, never mind you have not even castro. it seems a lot of politicians are already grabbing for your wallet. not much talk about getting the debt under control. lots of talk about, as we say, getting their spending that helped get it out of debt and into debt out of control. an issue that worries to former titans of the senate, democrat sam nunn and republican bob bennett. partisan coming up first. right now fox news digital political editor and town hall dot com editor. what are we to make about these plans for a second obama administration, it might not

come to pass, but they are getting their spending priorities in order. >> look. the thing that the president is very clearly doing in this reelection campaign is being a very vague. well democrats accuse mitt romney of being vague, the president has intentionally talked only in general about the need for infrastructure and other stimulus kind of spending and the need for what he says will be a tax increase on top earners to pay for it. when you get down to specifics you don't need -- you don't hear very much about what it would be. part of the reason for that is that the president knows that there are a lot of people with their hands out, the people with ideas for how that money ought to be spent. one concern that he has aside from frightening moderate voters with more spending is creating this line up at the trough for lawmakers from his own party it will be looking for the second term to be even more lavish than the first. neil: to you think that will be

the case? >> i think it could be. based on what these democrats have already lined up in terms of what they want for a second obama turned it does seem little out of touch because, as we know, more spending when you're spending outside your means, $16 trillion in debt, just means the expansion of government. poll after poll shows the american people and american voters are concerned about how big the federal government has been getting. i hear a lot of repeats in what they're asking for. president obama may not be implementing an environmental policy that is directly geared toward climate change, but look at the epa policies under president obama. they are geared toward addressing climate change in terms of regulations on coal mines. in terms of immigration reform we have seen president obama work on the. >> translator: and we just saw his executive order that looked very similar to that piece of legislation. it's kind of a repeatable we have already seen and a little out of touch with people concerned about right now. neil: i wonder if it is part of

the perceived victor's already claiming the spoils. i suppose it mitt romney were the runaway favorite, you are seizing on keeping open those facilities and military contracts or jobs that could be imperiled as a result of even automatic sequestration. so are we seeing something we always see, just more obvious out? what? >> i certainly think there is truth in that. on the republican side, what you expect right now are a lot of calls for romney to move right and position themselves so that there would be cuts and things like that. you might hear social issues crop up, but for the president what this is, we saw a poll today that was conducted from the help that said that 87 percent of democrats are confident that the president is not going to win. certainly it is not helpful to the president's chances of winning for democrats to be talking about new spending at a time when people are very concerned about debt and

deficit. but as these folks continue to believe that their man is going to carry the day on november november 6th, they probably want to get in line first. neil: if there is always the risk when word of this leaks out that they look like they are decorating the office before they are guaranteed they're going to have it. now, if you are barack obama you already have it. what is to stop you from san amide looked at that new drug. you know what i mean. it does seem to be a sense that, you know, they are planning for a victory that might not happen. if this gets out then it could strike a lot of voters as, at the very least, arrogant. >> i think that they are forgetting that president obama is not the only piece of the puzzle. you still have a republican house which republicans that it will a lot to. mitt romney loses, paul ryan will still be the budget chairman. democrats can line up all these big spending initiatives if they want to, but the fact is that the house is still going to be

majority republican. if republicans don't take back the senate is going to be the same situation that we have ad for the past two years. i would say that they're going to go as far as trying to decorate the office before they have it. we might see another turnaround election in the year 2014 like we did in 2010 if they continue to push this big spending big government. neil: you're not giving up on spending. it almost sounded like you were. >> well, i am just simply saying if they are going to go with decorating the office. neil: thank you very, very much. don't look now, but he is back. remember caught 20 years later. back with a vengeance, and a new warning. deep in debt. ross perot fears we are easy date to be taken down. a former clinton press secretary, debate commission on those warnings from a guy who two decades ago almost up into the presidential race. very good to have you. >> good to be with you. neil: i remember.

he and his charts. i remember bill clinton responding to that, addressing that. many will argue, it was your boss to did address some of the same debt issues that perot claim to fame for. but he is back saying both parties have let him down. i think he goes on to say that he does not like other guy and that both parties have essentially risk throwing the country down the drain. is that resonating? >> i think that is classically ross perot. i think that would be an attitude you expected to have. there is an opportunity with these debates on wednesday night to get to some on the specifics that some of your commentators say are missing. we are hoping the format we have for these debates will get back beyond some of these slogans and the traditional talking points we are hearing from some of the candid it's an get into a more substantive discussion. neil: they can bring charts like ross perot? >> it is a good question.

the two campaigns have been in discussions with each other. the commission concept takes a hands-off view of that. i don't know if they have an agreement on that. we have seen both governor romney and president obama use charts from time to time. we will tune in and see what happens. neil: one of the things i remember about the debates that had to do with bill clinton and others who have mastered this as trying to get complicated stuff across easily, ronald reagan had his neck as well. take complicated material and said the size of for the people. in this case it would be a lot more money going out and is coming in. to your boss's credit he was a we have to address both republicans. just address all that money. it's going out. address spending. how do you encapsulate that in a one-minute or 902nd rabaul response to a point of spending? >> that's the point. you really can't. that is why we have redesigned

the format of these debates so that there will be 15 minutes shops and the candidates have to address the topic. now, jim has already said, the first three subjects will be the economy, the economy, the economy. then the fourth subject will be health care. medicare, financing, and health care financing. to what your panelists were just talking about, this topic will i think this goes if you want the think about how to simplify the debate, one of my other bosses said, how much government really wants to match the much are we really willing to pay for? that is pretty simple. neil: that is what every election, if you think about it comes down to parry the middle of a crisis, but to that point, you say that 15 minutes, address these insurance. there are still time done answers to each question. can they go at each other, you

know, unencumbered by a moderator or dominion know, something that it's in the way of them getting at each other? >> absolutely. the only ground rule is there will be a question posed at the beginning of each segment to each candidate and then they get about two minutes to go lay out what they have to say on an issue like the deficit, infrastructure, the economy. and then they really are going to be asked by the moderator, i'm sure, to sort of let's close this out a little bit too much talk about it. we need more specifics, and we will see above kendis respond. i have to make clear, it's not up to our oppression to decide how that conversation is structured. it will really be up to the moderator. neil: you did not give me a specific answer. after one or two tries. this is going nowhere fast. on what to the next thing. >> i'll say this.

if you walk into that debate with a lot of singers or one-liners' or sound bites and not try to be able to fill up the chant of time that is going to be around that debate. i think itwill be -- i'm hoping it will be an opportunity for both governor romney and president obama to really have a textured conversation about this and more importantly to get to those philosophical differences that clearly they have on what the role of government should be neil: looking forward to it. thank you very much. >> nice seeing you. good to be with you. neil: we will be live at 8:00 p.m. until midnight this wednesday for that tender opening, and we will be covering all the debates right here on fox business. meanwhile, get ready for the october surprise. it might be a number, not a blunder. there is a difference. it could be china that turns the election around by taking our economy down. he would take only a few guys to do it.

former senator bob bennett and sam nunn are having none of it.

overmanyiscounts to thine customs! [old english accent] safe driver,

multi-car, paid in full -- a most fulsome bounty indeed, lord jamie. thou cometh and we thy saveth! what are you doing? we doth offer so many discounts, we have some to spare. oh, you have any of those homeowners discounts? here we go. thank yoyou. he took my shield, my lady. these are troubling times in the kingdom. moreiscounts than we knoweth whato do with. e. neil: it's oer 1. to youuknow whe your election surprises? political pundts, you can count the crisis that will the se ction one where the ther. whf it's nt a misstep th does it butust a boring old

econom number that ultimately cides it. the datahat could pull a doozy at the poll. it could bny host. >> that's righ we have just ad their gdp, report card on the u.s. economy came in very low. the upcoming jobs report. there are a couple of, clearly some time bombs there that can actually suede. it could be again ginger for the election. i personally think it's going to be higher oil prices. the smedley's uprising will boil over, and if that is the case are going to see higher prices of the pop. as you know, voters go with what is in their wallets. take some cash out of those wallets, because with the election. neil: i always tend to think that things are kind of big to do when it comes to economic numbers. unless there are so awful or so great that their way out of what was expected, it's not going to move the need a much. what is the expectation for

something approaching that? >> well, the two big jobs reports thaa we have between now and the election, i mean, we saw last month a dismal job growth, 96,000 jobs. another jobs report on friday. if we see anything above 8 percent unemployment, which we are still there now. hovering around that level. if we see a jump in the unemployment, another dismal job growth number, these markets are going to react. let me tell you, when you look at the stock market and people go home and look at their retirement as we enter into last quarter of the year, if we see a stock market, voters will react. trader on the floor are warning that investors have become so complacent. down 63% over last year, stock 63 percent of the past year. the stock market is up 15%. between now and election day we voters will react to that. neil: to sandra's point, a lot

are seeing that double digit run-up, depends on the state and 401(k). and they like what they see, they might like what they are getting out of sights. this show their homes are no longer imploding. is that enough for this environment where we expect so little to help the president is that enough? >> that is correct. sandra is right, next 30 to 45 days are critical. you have average 401(k) balance about 107,000, and s&p 500 un14% plus year-to-date. if you see those gains evaporate, if they go away because of poor macro headlines and higher oil prices that would be the game changer for voters. they don't want to see their brokerage statement and see these numbers start melting away if that is the case that probably both start to change

using their wallets, election day. neil: when you look at the data and the market, if the market is 04 licking mechanism in the market, it can be all over the map. it has been the president's trend, an october surprise or cause pause? in other words, there would just but barring that. president dodges a financial bullet. >> one could argue that the stock market is -- has been artificially propped up by the fed's money printing measures. when the market looks today they look at earnings, we're about to get latest report on quarterly earnings, ubs put out a dramatic note saying they believe we'll enter earning recessions, that is two straight quarters of negative earnings growth, those are the fundamentals that should

be driving the stock market. we're still in a uphoria period, to stimulate the market. neil: quickly, todd, i remember 1980, a point in that weekend, when a lot of people just said, to hell with it. they saw ronnie at reagan in his debate with jimmy carter they liked idea they could switch horses at that stage, he seemed to comfort himself well, they were tired of everything and needed a reason to say we're done, he is out. are we approaching anything like that now where whatever we're seeing now, could reverse? >> yes, because if you remember that time, american pride was down the tubes, misry index was super high like it is now. we get accustomed to sees new products and say apple and we

think that it is great, you hear from politicians and you hear it is in recovery mode. but that is not the case, main street does not buy it. if sentiment is poor, job picture continues to be weak, then yes, leading up to this elect, there are 30 plus days, if people are not feeling well, it will be bad for the incumbent. neil: we'll see thank you very much. how is this for october, hack attack that could be a huge setback for the economy. guy who said he is closer than you think. you see us, at the start of the day. on the company phone list that's a few names longer. you see us bank on busier highways. on once empty fields. everyd you see all the ways all of us at us bank

lending more so companies and communities can expand, grow stronger and get back to work. everyday you see all of us serving you, around the country, around the corner. us bank.

neil: red alert at white house, chinese hackers breached a computer at house military office, the white house says

that no harm was done. but this is just the latest hack attack could cyber crooks hitting several major u.s. banks. this is a bigger economic threat than the military one it would pose, what do you mean? >> we in our society, we do everything digitally, you think about the past even companies like eharmony, more and more has not been just taking information about storing it. the attacks against the banks point out this is the evolution, congress has been wrestling with it for the last couple of years, they cannot get out of their own way to say, how do we set a standard, how do we get information shared about the attacks and how do we make american business societies less vulnerable. neil: it keeps happening, i keep thinking it happens to a mid see

company -- big size company. >> but now, what happen -- >> what happens to a government computer it goes to the white house, they say, you know, this is just like a phishing expedition, they plant a virus, and it disrupts the computer, they planted a virus, end of story. >> well, the problem with any of the governmental i-t structures, it relies on one component, that a human element, we assume that everyone from folks in white house down to the department of defense, to did other of governmental agencies, they know what they are doing when it comes to e-mail, and how to deal with computer sim, we're finding out, they don't know, as much as they should, so everyone opportunity, -- every opportunity that hackers have to find someone they could

infiltrate get them to open an e-mail and download a meleshous payload is all you need to prevent, and start an attack, and preventing it is difficult. neil: why are the chinese so blunt about it, in a thousand u.s. corporation, it is to say nothing of repeated government attacks, it is as if they set up shop at a starbucks, and doing it in broad daylight, and they are not even denying it you know, what do we do about that? >> chinese government has been open about the fact they hire young students, they train them to do hacking. they train them to go into the computer sim, and decide -- system and decide how u.s. and rest of the world does their cyber business, go in, get this information and take it for their own use. neil: where do you see this going to michael how far? >> actually, the information i have received about bank attacks, is that more disturbing

evolution here, that is that it is not just, the attack where you go after a web site, and you try to take down that web site to a denial service attack, you wall it off, you try to insert a code. but they are going after, the domain names, the infrastructure of cyber security world, and what is so disturbing about, that now you can take that information, you can stop it but you could distort it. and that now, when you have a consumer-based cyber security or cyber network, you do all your cyber, what do you do, you get your bank account it is all gone, what happens if we lose confidence in our cyber system that is economic ruin. neil: well, wellpointed out, thank you very much. >> ignore the poll, focus on how many might go to the polls. t knl is coming from.

and we're not talking about 3rd world countries. we're talking right here in america in our own back yard. so we wrote a tune to shine a little light on the issue. but we want it to be more than a song about hunger, we want it to be a recipe for change. find out how you do your part at childhungerendshere.com hunter: beat box... ♪ here's hope, here's hope, showin' up at your front door, here's hope ♪

neil: are democrats the ones who are going to get throttled, you don't see it in most polls but you see it in number of democrats so far who are not planning to go to the polls, compared to this time 2008, not a lot of jazzed democrats in 2012, not as many, in ohio, 4 490,000 folks are registered. and another survey, by a left-leaning think tank, shows similar declines in florida,

iowa and new hampshire. that is not to say that the president does not lead in the polls in these states. if passion is a factor, is the president's possible loewser in swing states -- loser in swing states why right now he looks like a winner, hard to say, this much is not. if the key to victory is jazzing your base, the president is not, that not to say that mitt romney has but by comparison, number of registered republican voters is about the same if not slightly hire than 2008, who knows what this means. let's say, for president and for democrats, a sign they should hold off on that party, our question, if so many democrats are not coming back, who says that mitt romney really is that

far back? g.o.p. strategist, sherri, i think i know what you ar are gog to say. >> i think there are problems with the polling, a lot are looking at 2008 models, that is not the way to go, obama voters and democrats were very energized in 2008, they are not there, they talk about registered voters as if they are going to the poll, you have to look at likely voter, ven then we have problem, in 2010, pollsters were way off. republicans picked up 53 house seats we saw it in 94, i don't think newt gingrich expected to be speaker in 94. neil: no, there is historic precedent to get it wrong, i don't know about you i will say, that in some states, and still early, as you remind me, it is beyond the margin for sampling error, i mean, if barack obama

is up 8 to 10 points, even allowing for whatever statistical bias you see, mitt romney should be worried? >> he should be, but it does not make sense, nationally the race is statistically tied. you see the battle ground states we hear you know obama is so far ahead, that does not make sense, they are probably go 25 or 20% of the vote, in is something off right there i think that have you look at maybe 2010 models again, it was unexpected. neil: if did you, that by the way, the counter to that argument would be in corestates that are say republican states texas comes to mind, southern states, mitt romney enjoys significant leads, s is typically the case. corestates to each candidate go their way, ago -- having said that do you think that there is

room for a wide swing within the swing states? if so, how significant would it be? normally, the closer we get to the election, the less likely it is, in 1980 it happened. but what do you see? >> well, you have a president who is only has a 47% approval rating, if you are under 50%, and you are the incumbent and it is october, have you big problems, the case has been made why he is be hired, but the case still visit to be made why romney should be hired. i think you see battle ground states with the margins so -- distance between the two, so large, i think that it is unlikely it can be that stark in the states. so the numbers have to be off, it was seen in battle ground states even urban areas that favor democrat look at likely voters, and again obama campaign, seems to rely on

getting voters angry almost to the point of hatred. you have to get them out on election day, very different from 2008, hope and change, and up lifting that is a real challenge for democratic and obama campaign to get the voters ra riked -- riled up again. neil: you want them registered at least. sherri thank you very much. in washington. >> thank you. neil: bill, may sell the man, i want to meet the republican and democrat, who actually do the man. >> people ask me all the time, how we got 4 surplus damages in a row, what new ideas did we bring to washington, i always give a one word answer, arithmetic.

neil: our debt is exploding, ross perot of notopoly one coming back in a page 1 spread in "usa today" to say it will crush us. two season democrat veterans say. we all go down if it keeps up, here to spell it out, and options we still have before time is up, former democratic senator sam young, and bob bennett, do you long ago, you were reminding people of the dangers of this accumulating debt. but it is still accumulating. i am wondering if this elect year, if it is an issue they are even bothers to address, if you had your druthers what would you

like. >> i would like them to use common arithmetic, we do have a sorryious problem. -- we have a serious problem, we have to discuss with the american people that the retirement programs cannot maintain the same trajectory, we're not cutting social security or medicare but we have to bend the coastline downward, otherwise we will not be able to sustain the programs we have. and our country, with a fragile economy recovery, and a global environment will be in deep difficulty, no one can predict how long the bond market will support american debt. >> well, it will keep doing so as long as ben bernanke keeps it going, i think, we have catted chatted about this before, we live in an environment, where each party is

captive to the extreme elements that don't want to budge. if you try to rein in the growth of entitlement you are throwing grandma off the cliff on your side, if you try to address you know closing loopholes and credits and allowances that allow some, to not pay taxes you raise taxes so tea partiers hate you, you can't move the ball forward whether that is how we play the game. >> there needs to be honesty here, sam nun has it right, the challenge is not because of anything that republicans have done or democrats have done, but because of changing demographics am demographic trends are the most difficult to change. and they have been coming at us for years, and we have known this is coming for years, we

keep putting it off, saying, well, i'll just demagogue the issue in this election, then we'll deal with it later on. well, you can't do that. the baby boomer started retiring. started swelling the ranks, demographically of the people drawing in entitlement in 20008. -- in 2008, just as we va problem that hit with us financial chance in september of 2008, we saw the increases demands going up simply because we are an aging nation. neil: you know, you explain that very clearly. you could be left to right, and understand that is a truth. we're getting older, a lot more of a big crush of people at the same time getting older. the dynamics do not support what we have right now, but senator

nunn, idea is that you either try to slow that momentum in spending, and address that growth in population. you are torpedoing benefits that are sacrosanct. how do you get people around that notion they are trying to save those benefits or they are gone. >> i don't think that a torpedo should apply when you have a line that continues to go up, we have to tell younger people, you have to save more money, because by the time you retire, the age of retirement may about up, that happens over a language period of time, -- a long period of time, and we may have to have cost of living adjustments. neil: easy solutions never offered or accepted by enough to get that ball moving forward. >> they have been offered on the floor of senate even wheny was there. we never had a majority vote for them, yo you are right about th.

>> i never understood the problem, people have to understand this, when they do the american people will support. neil: but it is getting past that hurdle. >> i wrote a bill that did what senator nunn is talking about, it was scored by the administrators, board of trustees, of the social security administration as a 100% fix of social security that would make social security safe, and i took it to the republican leader, and said this is what we ought to be doing, he said bob that will be the republican position, we'll get behind it as soon as you get your first democratic cosponsor, i laid it out for them, they said this is great, this will solve the problem. and we'll get behind it, we'll join you, right after the election. >> okay. >> there we were.

one point, i want to make, that washington is only place i know where when you give somebody more this year, than you gave them last year, that is called a cut. >> a very good point, and a point to pick up on. >> you give them less than what they were promised. neil: that is something we get wrong in the media, this idea of cuts when you talk about slowing the growth of something, senator nunn's point about making sure that line does not go up as much as it is. the debate over the very words we ice i use in the debate afte.

neil: we have former senator bob bennett, former senator sam nunn debating what we do now on the

debt, this comes up in detail after an election, but senator nunn, if barack obama is reelected, argument we hear a lot of democrats are planning a spending initiatives much their own to keep the spigot spigotting. nothing changes. and if mitt romney were to win, republicans are planning more military and the like spending, how do we disavow each side of its knee-jerk inclination to spend to industry's favored to its party. >> i thought hope that debate will produce more honest dialogue. and then right after the election, whoever is elected, we face the fiscal cliff in january, and almost all economists left or right or center, say that it would cause a high-risk of another recession. so what i would like to see instead of a fiscal cliff that

we face, instead of kicking that can down the road 6 months, let's change cans, use simpson-bowles or a combination, and substitute is say you have 6 months overturn it you may not like it, but this is better than what we face right now, why not substitute a logical and sane default position for what we have facing us now. neil: senator bennett, what in your gut, do you think they will do? regardless who wins, prevailing wisdom they either delay the cuts, try to screw around with sequestration, a glorified way of kicks the can down the road what do you think? >>i think that suggestion that senator none u.n. -- nunn has made is the right thing we

should do, i do not see sequestration, fiscal cliff, i see congress blinking very big time, saying, let's delay this. neil: a lame duck second that decides -- session that decides? >> no, i think -- maybe they will do it on the lame duck, they come back on the third of january. and because no one wants to be responsible for their consequences that would come if they did nothing. so the instinct let's put it off a while. neil: we've done that forever. >> that is not the solution. neil: i agree. senator nunn, to that point, if we do something like that, are we reinforcing the credit ratings agencies' desire to downgrade us, that is stuff of banana republic and now there will be hell to pay for doing it. >> i think that bob is basically

correct. this is an issue of rating agency. but fundamental issue is a morale issue and a generational issue, beyond the numbers we can deal with the numbers, all sorts of people on both sides that can work this out. but, the real signal to the markets and world and our own country is that this government cannot function that is more dangerous than even the numbers. neil: do you think if we don't make a move, and soon, themacy message to markets will be, sell-off like crazy? >> one thing some disturbs markets more than anything else is uncertainty. and sam is just described the biggest uncertainty of all, that is will the u.s. government be able to function. neil: we will go longer for you, i want to hear what you say, if we don't act immediately, you say you can't keep pulling this

stunt, this time there would be hell to pay? >> i think, gdp growth would continue to be sluggish, if not tip over to another recession, because as has been pointed out in previous versions of this, there are trillions of dollars waiting on the sidelines for some sense of certainty to come into the economy and investment. and if the federal government -- >> if they get their act together and respond. >> we're pressed for time, do you think then that there would be a collapse or just cuts off the growth of spending in military and others over 10 years no less, are they that draconian there would be that kind of hell to pay. >> it is say change to our habit bus not draconian, we make modest changes now, the changes would be more dramatic.

neil: but they iy sequestrations that everyone calls doomsday are they doomsday? >> if all at once, it is sudden, and in a fragile economy, no one knows what will happen. but you know, i think we're right in the middle of winston churchill propert prophecy thatd that america will do the right thing wan once they try every or alternative, markets are comfortable until they are not comfortable. neil: a very good point, thank you so much both. >> thank you, neil. >> thank you, bob. neil: progress is possible, folks, more after this. for many, nexium helps relieve

heartburn symptoms caused by acid reflux disease. osteoporosis-related bone fractures and low magnesium levels have been seen with nexium. possible side effects include headache, diarrhea, and abdominal pain. other serious stomac conditions may still exist.

talk to your doctor about nexium. neil: now it will get busy. the first big debate coming up by wednesday